THE MINING DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11642, 2 May 1901, Page 6

THE MINING DISPUTE.

'"BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN REPORTER.] Waihi, Wednesday. The Conciliation Board resumed this morning, tho members present being: The Rev. A. H. Collins, Messrs. .1. Fawcus, W. H. Lucas, and E. W. Alison. DISMISSAL OF A WITNESS. When tho proceedings opened, Mr. W. H. Potts (the president of the Miners' Union) said there was an important letter to come before the Board.

John Humphrey, one of the witnesses examined during the week, handed in, the following letter addressed to the Board:—"I was summoned to give evidence before your Board. When I got the summons I was working in the Jubilee mine at Waitekauri. I took tho summons to my boss, and showed it to him. I attended your Board and gave evidence, and immediately returned to do my work, but I was told I was dismissed, the excuse given being that I was absent from my work at the Conciliation Board. My absence from work was caused by obeying your summons, and therefore I must ask what protection your Board will give me." Tho Chairman asked Mr. Humphrey to state the name o! the person who had dismissed him.

Mr. Humphrey said it was Mr. George Snelgar, the underground boss. The Chairman stated that a subpoena would be issued to Mr. Snelgar to appear before the Board to-morrow, and no further discussion on the matter would take place until that summons ho.d been obeyed. A subpoena was at once issued and handed to Constable Henry for service. EVIDENCE RESUMED. John William Robinson, the next witness, said he was employed in the Waihi battery. Ho had received 7s a day as a labourer, 8s for trucking quartz and dust, 8s 6d when on the back stampers, and 9s on the front stampers. Practically all the men in tho battery suffered from the effects of dust. Witness named several men who had been affected by the dust. He had been affected by it himself. It caused shortness of breath, coughing, and sometimes vomiting. The lungs were weakened, and an affected person became very liable to colds, which sometimes hung on a. man for three or four months at a time. The cyanide fumes also affected the men engaged in trucking dust to the tallies. 'The noise caused by the stampers affected the hearing. The company could, if they put on extra hands, do most of the repairs on week days instead of Sundays, as at present. Witness approved the scale drawn up by the union for the payment of dry battery hands. To Mr. Drumm: There had been considerably fewer hands employed on Sundays in the Lattery sinco the present dispute began. To Mr. Barry: Ho would rather effect the repairs when the mill was running, although there was more dust, because ho wished to have his Sunday off. To Mr. Tunks: It was true that the companies had made some attempt to improve the condition of tho men at the battery. Mr. Montgomery: Could you suggest anything thai could be done by the management to make work in the batteries more comfortable than it is at present? Witness : No ; 1 cannot. Mr. Fawcus: How long have you been employed at the battery as stampcrman? Witness : About 18 months.

Mr. Fawcus : How many Sundays have you worked during that time? Witness: All but two or three.

Mr. Fawcus: What would be the average number of hours you have worked on thoso Sundays on which yon have been employed? Witness: About 10 or 12 hours.

Mr. Fawcus: That is 01 every Sunday? Witness: Yes. Mr. Fawcus: Do you get anything more than single rate pay for the Sunday work? Witness: Just ordinary time. Mr. Tunks asked if the Sunday work was repairing the battery. Witness said it was. In answer to Mr. Drumni, the witness said the men who worked on Sunday were those who had been working during the week. No extra hands were employed on Sunday. To the Chairman: He would prefer to have six days' pay and be- off on the Sunday than to have the seven clays' pay. Samuel R. Hamiam, employed at the Waikino battery, said lie formerly worked four years in the Waihi battery. Ho approved the union scale, but thought shift bosses should get more. He was of opinion that Sunday work could be greatly minimised, and thought if double pay were given for Sunday work it would materially assist the abolition of unnecessary work on that day. In the past the Waihi Company had ordered a great ileal of unnecessary Sunday work. Witness had felt the effects of dust, and had been ordered by his doctor to stop working in tho dust. He was most decidedly of opinion that men should be restrained from working on Sunday, even if they were willing to do so.

I Andrew Young Ross, general commission ; agent, residing at Waihi, deposed that the ! cost, of an average two-roomed house in Waihi would be from £45 to £50; a threeroomed house, £80; a four-roomed house, £100; and a six-roomed house, £175. The rent of an ordinary throe-roomed house withing easy distance of the Waihi mine would be 7s 6d to Bs, and, if well finished, 9s; a four-roomed house would cost 10s; a fiveroomed house, £1; and a six-roomed house, £1 ss. He considered those high rents when they were compared with the Thames'. The total increase in the cost of building material within the last two years had been from 20 to 25 per cent. Some of the houses were owned by the companies, who charged about the same rents as the other landlords. There were several causes for the high rates, the chief ones being as follows:—The insecurity of land tenure, especially where licenses were endorsed, thus preventing th borrowing of money to bulid; the companies holding so much land, the heavy rates of interest and insurances, and the cost of bringing material to Waihi. Witness had properties placed in his hands for sale by persons, who stated they could make more money out of farming than out of mining, and wished to leave Waihi. Asked as to the amount held back bv the Waihi Company in wages, witness said that if there were 1000 men working in the Waihi mine, and their average wages were £9 a month, £9000 was held by the company, and, averaging it, he would say that £4500 per annum was held by the company all the time. Interest on that amount would be £225 a year, or enough to kee'-> a medical man in the place. Supposing the wages were paid fortnightly, only half that sum would be held back. In addition, there were percentages on contracts and deposits, making a sum which could not be ascertained without reference to the company's books. As an illustration of the company holding back eight or nine days' pay from each employee, witness quoted the case of a man who had been working for the company for 10 years, and the interest on the portion of wages hold back would amount to about £1 12s. Witness considered the amounts should be bankod, so as to form the nucleus of a sort of accident fund. He con-

sidered 8s per day would be a living wage in "Waihi, and 10s to 15s per clay a fair wage. A living wage was one point above starvation, and a fair wage was such as to give a worker sufficient to live up to the requirements of 20th century civilisation, enable him to provide) proper education! for his family, and all the necessaries of life, including mental and physical recreation, and enable him to lay by a little for his old a<re. Contracting was morally wrong, because whether a. man took a contract too high or too low somebody was wronged. If it were too high, the employer was wronged, and if too low the worker was wronged, Mr. Barry asked if it were possible to pay a man at once for the work he did? "Witness replied that he might pay a man working for him by the week, and at the end of the week.

Mr. Barry pointed out that even in such a case the employer would owe the man something at the beginning of the week. Mr. Alison said the witness had stated that the first week's pay was kept back till the men were discharged. Mr. Barry again contended that it wa~> impossible to pay a man. for his work exactly at the* time he had performed such work.

The Chairman remarked that ho understood the witness to mean that a man must work five weeks before he was entitled to be paid, and then lie was paid four weeks',, wages, the other week's pay being kept back until he was dismissed. The witness said that was his moaning. He did not know it from his own knowledge, but had been told that such was the case by a number of the men. Mr. Barry explained that the company paid monthly. If a. man came on just after pay day ho might have to wait a month for his money. If a man came on a day before the wages-sheet was made up, he could have that day's pay. Mr. Alison asked if the Chairman had correctly interpreted the witness' meaning. Mr. Barry said it was certainly truj that while a man was waiting for money he was earning more. The witness remarked that the men were not paid when the pay-sheet was made up, but eight days later. Mr. Barry pointed out that the men received that eight days' pay in the following month.

Mr. Lucas remarked that in nearly every industry but mining the men were paid right up to a certain day. To Mr. 'funks: Witness was of opinion that the amount held hack by tho company in the case quoted by him of the man who had been 10 years in their employ was the original first week's pay, and was detained during the whole time that tho man was employed. In answer to further questions, the witness admitted that the pay-sheets tool: some time in making out, and that the eight days during which the man was waiting for his money would be paid in the following pay-sheet, but still contended that the man would have eight days outstanding during the whole period of his employment. It was true that the same thin l ? would occur even if the man were paid daily, but there was a difference in degree. As a remedy, he advocated pay days at. more frequent intervals than once a month.

To Mr. Whalley: Houso property in Waihi gave a return cf from 26 to' 29 por cent. He had no objection to contracting when a house was concerned, but still thought contracting morally wrong. .John Chester, a miner, living at Waihi, said ho had received lis a day for working in a rise at Reef ton, and had received 8s a day for tho same work in tho Waihi mine. He had to leave the rise in the Waihi mine because the air was bud. The conditions at Reef ton were not worse than they wore at Waihi, and tho cost of living was about the same at both places. To Mr. Boyd: He had received the lis a day from a contract;. To Mr. Rhodes: Ho intended to return to Reefton as soon as he could.

To Mr. Whalloy: Witness did not approve of contracting, as it caused too" mucn cutting. He would remedy it by adopting the West Coast method, where two deputies from the union visited the work and decided whether a man could make it pay. The deputies could not see further into the ground than any other men, hut they were more familiar with the country than a stranger would be. In answer to Mr. Tanks, the witness said thai the inspection of the work by two deputies from the union simply meant that the union gave die contractor the benefit of its experience if so desired. To Mr. Alison: Witness considered the union scale of pay should apply to the wholeof the North Island.

Some discussion took place as to the modo of procedure to be adopted by the Board at the conclusion of the union's evidence at Waihi.

Mr. Rhodes said lie imagined that the Board would hear all the evidence of the union, and then call upon the companies' re presentatives to reply. ' If the Board finished the union evidence at Coromandel, the firs; witness for the employers would then be called, and it might be necessary for the Board to then retrace its steps to tho Thame;, and Waihi.

Mr. Drumm suggested that it would do more convenient if the companies' representatives would call their evidence in each centre as tho union evidence was concluded. Mr. Rhodes naid they would decline to do that. The Board then adjourned till to-morrow.